BEIJING (AP) — Religious practice among Chinese Communist Party members is increasing and threatens its unity and national leadership, a top party official said in remarks reported Monday.

Party members are required to be atheists and must not believe in religion or engage in religious practice, said Zhu Weiqun, a member of the party's Central Committee and executive vice director of its United Front Work Department in charge of dealings with nonparty groups.

Religious practice is a growing trend, especially in areas inhabited by ethnic minorities, and must not be tolerated, Zhu said in comments published in the latest edition of the main party theoretical journal, Qiushi, and reported by the official Xinhua News Agency

HHDL: "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

Soundz like a good thang to me, dat means more people are becoming religious in da political circle. Not to mention there are masters actually doing positive work to help China getting back to it's Buddhist roots,

I went through a phase where I read Marx religiously. I never found anything explicitly hostile to spirituality. It's a materialistic analytical scheme, but I'm of the opinion that they take that opiate of the masses line far out of context. If Marxism was a religion, most of the chinese leadership would have to be excommunicated. They're neo-liberals masquerading as socialists. The Chinese should actually study Marx if they want to keep up their red flag cherade

Ah Marx. I think his only serious error was that he understimated the human potential for corruption, and the consequent difficulty of finding morally qualified people to lead his visionary governments. As for the opiate of the masses, he may have been generally right. How many people hide away in their religions, their churches and temples just to escape reality?

catmoon wrote:Ah Marx. I think his only serious error was that he understimated the human potential for corruption, and the consequent difficulty of finding morally qualified people to lead his visionary governments. As for the opiate of the masses, he may have been generally right. How many people hide away in their religions, their churches and temples just to escape reality?

I don't think he was concerned much with human nature, or asserting ethical standards. Marx was an analyst. He studied economic structures. There is great critical inspiration to be found, especially in his later works. But people don't understand that he was just a social critic, and an ardent capitalist. Not a prophet of socialism.

Beatzen wrote:I don't think he was concerned much with human nature, or asserting ethical standards. Marx was an analyst. He studied economic structures. There is great critical inspiration to be found, especially in his later works. But people don't understand that he was just a social critic, and an ardent capitalist. Not a prophet of socialism.

That Marx was an analyst and a social critic okay, he definitely was not a revolutionary activist, but Marx was an ardent capitalist??? You on drugs or something? Should you be on drugs? Where exactly in Marxs voluminous social critique did you read a statement to that effect?

Beatzen wrote:I don't think he was concerned much with human nature, or asserting ethical standards. Marx was an analyst. He studied economic structures. There is great critical inspiration to be found, especially in his later works. But people don't understand that he was just a social critic, and an ardent capitalist. Not a prophet of socialism.

That Marx was an analyst and a social critic okay, he definitely was not a revolutionary activist, but Marx was an ardent capitalist??? You on drugs or something? Should you be on drugs? Where exactly in Marxs voluminous social critique did you read a statement to that effect?

Marx was not hostile to capital. He argued that surplus capital should be reinvested back into the means of production.

Karl Marx talked about the inherent contradictions of capital that give rise to an impoverished proletariat and that the social/historical consequences of this dialectic will be the collapse of capitalism and the institution of a proletarian centred political/economic/social structure.

You are talking about Karl Marx right? Not Groucho, Harpo or Chico Marx? Right???

gregkavarnos wrote:Karl Marx talked about the inherent contradictions of capital that give rise to an impoverished proletariat and that the social/historical consequences of this dialectic will be the collapse of capitalism and the institution of a proletarian centred political/economic/social structure.

You are talking about Karl Marx right? Not Groucho, Harpo or Chico Marx? Right???

Or maybe you read the Smith and Keynes translation of his works?

I think Beatzen is referring to the fact that Marx called capitalism "progressive", and a necessary phase in the historical developments which presage Industrial Socialism.

What Marx was, in fact, was an idealogue of urbanism and industrial civilization.

In terms of Smith, there is in fact very little in Marx that goes beyond Smith's labor theory of wealth. Marx's Capital is essentially a commentary on Wealth of Nations, properly understood.

A famous economist once said all of modern economics is just a commentary on Wealth of Nations, which is also true in a way, though it's certainly something of a simplification. The view that Marx doesn't represent anything really new is only true in terms of what has became modern, formalized neoclassical economics. From the point of view of the history of "mainstream" economics then yes, Marx was basically an insignificant German economist who hardly deserves to have his name mentioned. But that's certainly only true within that narrow subject, and completely wrong from the point of view of either political or social science, or history more generally.

Beatzen, you "Read Marx religiously" but you don't know what the First International is.

Namdrol wrote:I think Beatzen is referring to the fact that Marx called capitalism "progressive", and a necessary phase in the historical developments which presage Industrial Socialism.

What Marx was, in fact, was an idealogue of urbanism and industrial civilization.

In terms of Smith, there is in fact very little in Marx that goes beyond Smith's labor theory of wealth. Marx's Capital is essentially a commentary on Wealth of Nations, properly understood.

This is exactly what I was saying. Thank you. I felt like the natives were restless and my powder was getting rather wet for a moment.

I'm particularly fond of Rosa Luxemburg's commentaries on Marx's later works. I think she really predicted the cold war. so, following that observation I'd say that there is value in Marx's critiques, as long as one doesn't get overly enchanted by his earlier, more philosophical writing.

zangskar wrote:A famous economist once said all of modern economics is just a commentary on Wealth of Nations, which is also true in a way, though it's certainly something of a simplification. The view that Marx doesn't represent anything really new is only true in terms of what has became modern, formalized neoclassical economics. From the point of view of the history of "mainstream" economics then yes, Marx was basically an insignificant German economist who hardly deserves to have his name mentioned. But that's certainly only true within that narrow subject, and completely wrong from the point of view of either political or social science, or history more generally.

Beatzen, you "Read Marx religiously" but you don't know what the First International is.

You forgot to factor in that these narrowed, specified "social sciences" were in marx's day insepperable. for instance, "political economy" is not really something they talk about in contemporary political science or economics classes in higher education.

I know what the first international was, I'm just poo-pooing what I think is your uninformed interpretation of what marx's role there was. which I believe was as more of a reporter and observer than some cult personality. But then again, I wasn't there, and I haven't read anything beyond his writings. So obviously he's going to sound like a reporter to me.

I was mentored by a wonderful activist who had a PhD in social sciences from NYU. Name Carol Cina. Read her doctoral disertation. Called "Social Science for Whom" - brilliant marxian [not "Marxist"] structural analysis of social science itself. Inspired by the fact that in the 60's, in her social science text books, flip to the front and you see "research paid for by department of defense."

She argued that social sceince was created by the ruling class as a method for probing a population to find out how little you have to give them so that they don't rebel

see, that's the marxian-ism that I'm famuiliar with as genuine. It's blunt, rational, and may be interpreted as incendiary, but in the end it only diagnoses. It's not a truth like the Dharma, which diagnoses and treats. People think marx was perscribing something, when he really didn't. He was just good at taking notes,.